M.NARASIMHULU Vs. B.JANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured -claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum - IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.848 of 2002 dated 11.03.2004, awarding compensation of Rs.23,,232/ - as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/ -(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) HEARD Sri A.Jayasankara Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Ramulu, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent - National Insurance Company Limited. Service of notice was dispensed with against the 1st respondent -owner of the crime vehicle. In this regard, in M.Chakradhara Rao v. Y.Baburao; 2001(1) ALT 495 DB, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No.12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harijana Babakka; 1992(2) ALT 155 for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G.Aravind Kumar v. Md Sadat Ali; (2011) (4) ALD 804. Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co -respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(3.) ). Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: